The fuel is inexpensiveEnergy generation is the most concentrated sourceWaste is more compact than any sourceExtensive scientific basis for the cycleEasy to transport as new fuelNo greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

At 1/31/2016 7:13:53 AM, Torton wrote:This, this, and more of THIS! Most of the people who oppose it are from misinformation and the fears of the dangers of outdated plants; it might as be the equivalent of the anti-vaccination movement.

Sadly, this is technology that has been around since the 1960's. If Fukushima or Chernobyl were Molten Salt reactors then there would have been no catastrophic containment breaches. MSRs are "walk away safe".

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensiveEnergy generation is the most concentrated sourceWaste is more compact than any sourceExtensive scientific basis for the cycleEasy to transport as new fuelNo greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

In it, the guy against nuclear energy showed that nuclear has the 2nd highest CO2 emissions behind Coal. It also takes between 10 and 19 years to set up a nuclear power plant. Among other things, in the end its the most undesirable of the clean energies.

Nuclear energy also takes the second largest amount of footprint (space is takes up), behind solar. But then you can put solar on houses, buildings, parking lot structures, light poles, etc. which you can't do with nuclear.

At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensiveEnergy generation is the most concentrated sourceWaste is more compact than any sourceExtensive scientific basis for the cycleEasy to transport as new fuelNo greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

In it, the guy against nuclear energy showed that nuclear has the 2nd highest CO2 emissions behind Coal.

I think it is slightly unfair that he was adding the emissions of conventional energy during the construction process of nuclear power plants and calling it "nuclear emissions". The Molten salt reactors do not generate CO2 in the in the process of energy production. (they don't have any emissions!)

It also takes between 10 and 19 years to set up a nuclear power plant. Among other things, in the end its the most undesirable of the clean energies.

The MSRs have never been built on the scale of conventional nuclear reactors, so I'm not sure how this claim is applicable. Additionally, Thorcon claims it can have a 250MW MSR operating in as little as 4 years.

That might be true of nuclear plants requiring enriched fuels, but MSRs are not among those. They can be fueled by low grade waste left over from conventional nuclear plants (i.e. using up weaponizable material). One of the reasons MSRs were not developed in the 60's is because the waste generated was not very suitable for contributing fissile material for weapons. That's still true today.

Nuclear energy also takes the second largest amount of footprint (space is takes up), behind solar. But then you can put solar on houses, buildings, parking lot structures, light poles, etc. which you can't do with nuclear.

Nuclear power doesn't require anymore land than conventional energy sources. Not to mention, solar is not comparable to any of the conventional sources in dependability, but as far as emissions, only nuclear is comparable to solar.

Science has taught us that, because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign. - Carl Sagan

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensiveEnergy generation is the most concentrated sourceWaste is more compact than any sourceExtensive scientific basis for the cycleEasy to transport as new fuelNo greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensiveEnergy generation is the most concentrated sourceWaste is more compact than any sourceExtensive scientific basis for the cycleEasy to transport as new fuelNo greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.

At 1/31/2016 6:47:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:There are many Pros to nuclear as an energy source:

The fuel is inexpensiveEnergy generation is the most concentrated sourceWaste is more compact than any sourceExtensive scientific basis for the cycleEasy to transport as new fuelNo greenhouse or acid rain effects

The drawback to nuclear has been the difficulty in dealing with long lived radioactive waste and the possibility of nuclear contamination in the event of failure. (Fukushima, Chernobyl)

Next generation reactor designs offer a safer and more efficient energy than traditional reactors. For instance, the molten salt reactor (MSR) can be fueled by nuclear waste ejected from traditional reactors or non enriched uranium. Due to using the uranium in a liquid state, these new reactors promise 96% of the energy as opposed to the 3-4% achieved the first time around. The fuel being almost completely used up leads to shorter lived radioactive waste (350 years). Using liquid fuel also has another advantage in that in the event of power failure (Fukushima) the fuel automatically drains into an auxiliary tank and freezes. (Nuclear disaster averted!) Finally, a MSR plant can be built for about the same cost as a traditional coal plant and produce energy far more cheaply (.3 - .5 cents per KwH). Considering the concern with global warming, an effieicient environmentally friendly source of low emission energy is needed. Nuclear can provide all that as well as being more versatile and dependable than solar, wind, and hydro power.